Greenpeace activist updates direct from the tar sands

The tar sands are the largest industrial, capital and energy project on the planet but most people still have never heard of them. They are an environmental horror show located in Alberta, Canada that spew more emissions into the air than entire countries - by 2020 they could belch out more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire Czech Republic, twice as much as Peru and over 10 times that of Costa Rica. In addition they are set to consume an area larger than England (140,000 sq km) forever devastating one of the world's most diverse forest ecosystems and the planets largest carbon sink. The tar sands are one of the world's largest climate crimes and this toxic industry represents just how far our politicians are willing to go to keep us hooked on oil.

Unlike conventional oil operations to get tar sands out of the ground vast open pit mines or large well pads are created to get a sticky substance called bitumen out of the ground. The process is incredibly energy intensive – 3-5 times more energy is used then conventional oil operations, incredibly water intensive – 2-5 barrels of freshwater for every barrel of oil and the tar sands currently produce over 1 million barrels of oil every day and hugely destructive.

Today we are going in to say stop. We are going to stand in the way of the world's largest dumptrucks – over three stories tall and say no further. I am going because the tar sands represent the toxic future in store for all of us if our politicians continue to choose the health of big oil profits, over the health of our planet and the people on it. I am tired of sitting on the sidelines while our world is pushed to the brink of climate chaos. Tired of political stalling while millions are displaced or will die due to global warming. Today I will make a stand, like thousands before me and hopefully millions after to push for a better, greener world. Wish me luck!

Update from Mike - 9:20 am local time

"We have just locked down the mining site. The air is toxic. Two of us sit on top of a huge two storey dump truck chained to the inside and outside. Other activists are chained too trucks while other have unfurled a giant banner reading 'tar sands climate crime'"

Update from Mike - 9:40 am local time

"The mine is huge kilometres and kilometres of destruction. "

Update from Christy - 9:45 local time

Activists have blockaded a giant three story high truck and crane in the open pit mining operation. Now, activists have climbed on the truck and the crane and are locked inside the cabs of both vehicles. Both have stopped operations. Right now, Mike Hudema is locked inside the cab of a giant truck talking to media.

Update from activists locked to dumptruck - 11:00 local time

No trucks within site are moving - meaning Greenpeace activists have successfully shut down the operations in this area of the tar sands!

Update from Mike - 12:00 local time

Over three hours onsite with activists chained to two earthmovers and two at the very top of the crane. My eyes are burning but we are actively stopping this climate destruction.

Update from Mike - 13:00 local time

We have officially shut down all of shells albion sands operations! We have stopped this piece of climate destruction for four hours and counting. Spirits are high we will change this world.

Update from Christy - 2:20am local time

Our activists are continuing to occupy two giant trucks and a giant crane in the middle of a Shell tar sands mine. The whole 150,000 barrel a day operation continues to be shut down. Police are on site and the blockade area has been surrounded with spotlights, but it looks like police will not remove the activists during the night. The activists are in good spirits and are totally committed to sticking it out.

Final update on the Greenpeace tar sands mine action

After approximately 30 hours of occupation during which Greenpeace activists were able to halt production and un-roll massive banners reading: 'Climate Crime' - the action ended peacefully and without incident. Activists had communicated clearly the message that tar sands development is contributing towards a climate catastrophe - the high emissions and high energy use involved in extracting tar sands oil in northern Alberta will make it impossible for the world to meet the emissions reduction targets necessary to avoid runaway climate change. The tar sands do not fit into a clean, green and sustainable future. They must be stopped.

To "Tom", who encourages activists to "[b]uy electric vehicles instead of protesting oil sands developments", I ask: Did you know that driving an electric vehicle is illegal in Alberta? Greenpeace activists are courageous enough to stand up for what they believe in, while risking their physical safety and future personal freedom - I applaud them.

To any representitive of GreenPeace:
Why did you not accept to meet with Shell to discuss issues before, during, or after your protest?
You message would have held more merit if you behaved more diplomatically.

To me, it is alarming to read that in face of a potentially sweepingly harmful and, furthermore, largely unpublicised activity such as the tar sand mining, a violation of the law as minor as trespassing appears to be the prime concern of many who disagree with the "action".
Whether or not we speak about this particular event, and whether or not we find it fruitful or ineffective - is it not the law and the government of which that provides the basis for enterprises like these to run on, and - should those enterprises now be found guilty of unproportional pollution after the protest - would it not have been the law that would have continued to second them if it wouldn't have been for the protest?
How then - minding the scale of the case - can the law be held up as the limit of what one can do?
As a German citizen (who is aware of that saying this may open her up to off-topic attacks), I'd like to bring to attention again that being in compliance with the law during the "Third Reich" did not necessarily put you on the side of good.
This is not to imply similarities between the murderous "Third Reich" and the parties involved here, but to put in perspective the role of the law itself, and whether it is worth of being protected if on the violation side you find a comparably "respectful" manner of doing so, and on the "righteous" side you may discover a massively disregardful treatment of resources common to everybody (air, soil).
Thanks for your attention.

Stand firm GreenPeace. There are always people that is unwilling to forgo their relative convenience for humans lives. Which we can see very clearly from the post here.
Will Shell be putting back the forest and rivers after the stripping? Will the animals come back? Do we need more oil or do we need solar. The oil companies are currently the biggest opponent to clean energy. Cause with better solar technology, they will go out of job.

Hi, I really need this in Spanish! I work in the Environment Department of a construction firm in Peru. We have a very scientific approach to Environmental Impact Assessment. I have read Shell's response in their website, and they try to point out that they have a solid Environmental Plan to mitigate all negative impacts, in part, through compensation policies such as Carbon Capture and Storage. I don't know if I buy it. PLEASE TRANSLATE TO SPANISH, SO I CAN SHARE THIS CASE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. By the way, my HSE Manager has worked Shell in China. He may have something to say. No relation to them now, though.

Am I in ignorance? Yes. Are you in ignorance? Does admitting it count? To manifest my ignorance I frequently use oil. I admit I have ignorance…(but do I ‘really’ in the form of measurable counteraction of it ACT, which Greenpeace does, in the name of the ‘greater good’ of co-existing humanity and shared ecology on this world. It is not a question or should not be a question of whose livelihoods are more important or plus powerful to have demands fulfilled by the direct wealth of oil. The unconscious perhaps conscious ‘dog-eat-dog’ mentality, ‘out of sight out of mind’ attitude, and perpetual present (disconnected from the future) ideology based on oil’s consumption are shameful and partially my wrongdoing. Unfortunately Greenpeace is the scapegoat of our responsible conscience when we as a species should be more understanding of the consequences of our whims. The facts are currently, we are dependent if not artificially addicted to oil and its by-products. We need to plan alternatives which except for our ignorance we could see coming. Ignorance is bliss…but for how long before it becomes knowledge is torment. We need innovation and mass change. Greenpeace is an incremental step.

surely you could point out to world leaders such as obama/brown/g20 people that renewable sources are actually cheaper than extracting and processing the tar sands? seeing as it is money that is driving this extraction of oil from obscure places (tar sands being one example). its going to run out so why continue with a sinking ship? alternative sources are going to have to be used in the future, so why not now? the stern report clearly shows that as time goes on and climate change gets worse, then we are going to have to pay more for renewable sources to be implemented and energy all round.